"In that way it gives Linux an inroad it didn't have before Mono."
No, it doesn't. For internal development you have a wide variety of options. Java is quite good and very popular among those who consider the option of not running their wares under Windows. The only way Mono can appeal to Windows-only houses is by making it possible to run unmodified (and proprietary) products that run under Windows on other platforms.
Were I insane enough to allow my business to run on .NET and Windows, I would only consider migrating it to other platform if I had the assurance of being able to run it unmodified.
And, BTW, as it is, Mono is a patent minefield. Do you really trust Microsoft to act as a responsible corporate citizen when doing the right thing would cut their profits?
I wouldn't even if acting responsible would be profitable. Playing dirty seems too embedded in their corporate DNA.
"For internal development you have a wide variety of options. Java is quite good and very popular among those who consider the option of not running their wares under Windows. The only way Mono can appeal to Windows-only houses is by making it possible to run unmodified (and proprietary) products that run under Windows on other platforms."
I'm working at a Windows-only house with internally built .NET apps. Mono is definitely part of our long term plans to run these apps on other platforms.
Congratulations. You are the case where Mono makes sense - you can make sure your apps run the same on Mono and on .NET.
Unfortunately, some shops need to use off-the-shelf software that may even run on Mono but is not officially supported and, if something did go wrong, they would on their own.
1) C# is a standardized, open spec language. Mono is an implementation of that open spec. The development of that specification is driven by MS's .Net platform.
2) Here's a crucial bit of patent/IP law: by releasing the specification of the language to the "public", MS is barred from suing over it in a court of law. So again, there's no need for it say that it won't sue, since it's already prevented from doing so.
Isn't Mono more than the C# implementation, covering much of the whole .NET API, which is not, IIRC, covered by ECMA-334.
And even if by publishing the spec they would have given up their right to sue implementors (which they did not) they would be free to sue anyone that used any technique on which they own valid patents on any jurisdiction insane enough to allow such patents.
And while I doubt their willingness to test such patents in court, I also acknowledge the potential for long and painful lawsuits is more than enough an incentive use other technologies that are every bit as nice to the developer as .NET while negating completely any litigation risk.
I strongly suspect that it would be much easier to port existing .NET code to Mono than it would be to port it to Java. I also suspect than any .NET team wanting to experiment with Linux or Unix would probably prefer to learn Mono's quirks than an entirely new language.
No, it doesn't. For internal development you have a wide variety of options. Java is quite good and very popular among those who consider the option of not running their wares under Windows. The only way Mono can appeal to Windows-only houses is by making it possible to run unmodified (and proprietary) products that run under Windows on other platforms.
Were I insane enough to allow my business to run on .NET and Windows, I would only consider migrating it to other platform if I had the assurance of being able to run it unmodified.
And, BTW, as it is, Mono is a patent minefield. Do you really trust Microsoft to act as a responsible corporate citizen when doing the right thing would cut their profits?
I wouldn't even if acting responsible would be profitable. Playing dirty seems too embedded in their corporate DNA.